Kamal Jeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

By means of the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has challenged the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by learned In-charge Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and also the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question in present case was seized by the police, and not by the forest officials. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that Section 52A (Uttaranchal Amendment) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, shall came into play only when a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which is the property of the State Government. The officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of Section 52 shall seize it without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains or other articles used in committing the offence before an officer not below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the vehicle in question was never produced before the Divisional Forest Officer. Even report was not given to him and, therefore, the vehicle shall be disposed of by the Magistrate concerned and not by any Divisional Forest Officer / Conservator of Forest.

Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Uttaranchal Amendment), reads as under:

"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation. -(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chain or other articles used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest officer or Police officer.

(2) Any Forest officer or police may, if he has reason to believe that a boat or vehicle has been, or is being used for the transport of any forest produce in respect of which a forest offence has been, or is being, committed, require the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle to stop it, and he may detain such boat or vehicle for such reasonable time as is necessary to examine the contents in such boat or vehicle and to inspect the records relating to the goods transport so as to ascertain the claims, if any, of the driver or other person in charge of such boat or vehicle regarding the ownership and legal origin of the forest produce in question.

(3) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made, and if the seizure is in respect of forest produce which is the property of the State Government, shall also make a report to the authorized officer."

No doubt the power of seizure lies with both, i.e., to a Forest Officer or a Police Officer, but as per Section 52A (Uttaranchal Amendment), the same should have been reported to the Divisional Forest Officer, which, according to learned counsel for the applicant, has not been done in the instant case.

It will be worthwhile to quote Section 52A (Uttaranchal Amendment) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 here-in-below. The same reads as under:

"52A. Procedure on seizure. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of Section 52 shall without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing the offence, before an officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, who may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order in writing with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property, and in case of tools, boat, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles, may also confiscate them.

(2) The authorised officer shall, without any undue delay, forward a copy of the order made under sub-section (1) to his official superior.

(3) Where the authorised officer passing an order under sub-section (1) is of the opinion that the property is subject to speedy and natural decay he may order the property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction and may deal with the proceeds as he would have dealt with such property if it had not been sold and shall report about every such sale to his official superior.

(4) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made without giving notice, in writing, to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property:

Provided that in an order confiscating a vehicle, when the offender is not traceable, a notice in writing to the registered owner thereof and considering his objections if any will suffice.

(5) No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence."

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State, this C482 application is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the Magistrate concerned is directed to decide the application of the applicant for release of Truck No. U.K.-18C.A 2200, in accordance with law, if the same has not been reported and produced before an officer not below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf.

It is made clear that if the seized vehicle has been produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, then the forest officials only will have the jurisdiction to deal with the vehicle and not the Magistrate concerned.